Hannam v State of New South Wales (No 11) [2023] NSWSC 472

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hannam v State of New South Wales (No 11) [2023] NSWSC 472 Hearing dates: 26-27 April 2023 Decision date: 05 May 2023 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Adamson JA Decision: (1) In lieu of order (2) made on 23 May 2022, and subject to order (3) below, order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs on the ordinary basis up to and including 2 September 2021 and on an indemnity basis thereafter. (2) Order that the costs in (1) above be paid in the gross sum of $600,000. (3) In respect of the defendant's application for indemnity costs against the plaintiff and its application for an order that the costs of the proceedings be paid in a gross sum, make no order as to costs as between the plaintiff and the defendant with the intention that the plaintiff bear his, and the defendant bear its, own costs of these applications. (4) Dismiss the defendant's application for an order that the second and third respondents indemnify the plaintiff for his liability to the defendant for costs. (5) Order the defendant to pay the second and third respondents' costs of the defendant's application referred to in (4) above. (6) Orders (3) and (5) are subject to the right of any party affected to make a written application for a different order, such application to be made in writing to my Associate, together with any affidavit or written submissions to be relied upon, within seven days of the date of these orders. Catchwords: COSTS – whether offer of compromise limited to costs contained requisite degree of compromise COSTS – whether costs ought be ordered in a gross sum COSTS AGAINST LEGAL PRACITIONER – whether legal practitioner ought be ordered to indemnify plaintiff for costs for which the plaintiff is liable to the defendant Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 3B Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 98(4), 99 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 574B Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW), s 38 Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW), s 230 Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW), Sch 2, cll 1(2), 2, 4(2), 5 Police Act 1990 (NSW), s 6 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 20.26, 29.10, 42.15A Cases Cited: ACT v Crowley (2012) 7 ACTLR 142; [2012] ACTCA 52 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; [1938] HCA 34 Croucher v Cachia (2016) 95 NSWLR 117; [2016] NSWCA 132 Digiorgio v Dunn (No 2) (2005) 62 NSWLR 284; [2005] NSWSC 3 Fuller-Wilson v State of New South Wales [2018] NSWCA 218 Gokani v Visvalingham [2023] NSWCA 80 Hamod v State of New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 375 Hannam v State of New South Wales (No 9) [2022] NSWSC 648 Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53 Lemoto v Able Technical Pty Ltd (2005) 63 NSWLR 300; [2005] NSWSC 153 Lithgow City Council v Jackson (2011) 244 CLR 352; [2011] HCA 36 Mann v Carnell (1999) 201 CLR 1; [1999] HCA 66 Medcalf v Mardell [2003] 1 AC 120; [2002] UKHL 27 Muriniti v Mercia Financial Solutions Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCA 180 Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479; [1992] HCA 58 The Queen v Royall (1991) 172 CLR 378; [1991] HCA 27 Category: Costs Parties: Andrew Robert John Hannam (Plaintiff/First Respondent) State of New South Wales (Defendant/Applicant) Samuel Tierney (Second Respondent) Ken Cush & Associates (Third Respondent) Representation: Counsel: M White SC (Plaintiff/First Respondent) M Hutchings/ R Coffey (Defendant/Applicant) T Faulkner SC (Second and Third Respondents)